Loading...
SR-9-B (45) 9-1J OCT 8 1991 LUTM:PB:DKW:bz Santa Monica, California Council Meeting: October 8, 1991 Kjpermit TO: Mayor and city Council FROM: City staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Direct City Attorney to Prepare Resolution of Intention and Text Amendments to the zoning Ordinance Regarding Permit Terms and Extensions INTRODUCTION The city council directed staff to review the issue of planning and building permit extensions. The City Attorney has prepared a separate memorandum concerning several project-specific extension issues. The issues addressed by that memorandum are not addressed herein; instead, this report describes several already-implemented as well as proposed general changes to the Zoning Ordinance which are intended to clarify permit terms and extensions. BACKGROUND There are several permit extension issues which staff believes need change or clarification. These concern statements of official action and conditions of approval~ extension terms of various planning permits; and clarifying what constitutes use of a building permit. Another issue which needs to be addressed is when the General Service Department's infrastructure requirements 9-8 - 1 - Del 8 1991 are set in the development process. Each of these issues are discussed below. Action statements Staff has already implemented several changes to the statements of Official Action (SOAs) which are intended to e}{plicitly and consistently state the term of each permit and the ability to extend each permit. Although the Zoning Ordinance established permit term limits, up until recently, SCAs did not consistently state permit terms or extension ability, leading to some subsequent problems, particularly for older projects approved before the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1988. Specific changes to address these concerns include: 0 staff has revised the determination form for each type of permit to explicitly state the expiration date of each approval, and the length of any possible extension. 0 Standard conditions of approval now indicate that for new construction projects, a building permit must be obtained prior to the expiration of the planning permit in order to maintain the ability to proceed with a project. Although obtaining a building permit was generally the standard used in the past, it was not consistently used; through this change, staff established a consistent standard. - 2 - - - . These changes improve the record of each permit approval, and are expected to eliminate some of the problems which previously existed. Extension Terms The Zoning Ordinance has what appear to be inconsistent standards regarding the term of extensions. For example, the ordinance provides that Administrative Approvals and Variances are normally valid for a period of one year, and may be extended by up to six months, while Development Review and Conditional Use permits are normally valid for a period of one year, but may only be extended for a period of three months. Further, Performance standards Permits are normally valid for only six months, but may involve projects of equal or greater complexity than Administrative Approvals or Variances. Development Review and Conditional Use permits usually involve more complex and larger projects than Variances or Administrative Approvals, so it is unclear why a Development Review and Conditional Use Permit have a shorter overall potential tenn than a Variance or Administrative Approval, and also why Performance Standards Permits have a shorter term than Administrative Approvals and Variances. staff believes there was an intent to make the terms of the various permits consistent, but revisions to effect such changes did not occur in the zoning Ordinance drafting process. - 3 - The inconsistency among the various permit types led to some problems in the first few years of Zoning Ordinance implementation. To address these problems, and to achieve greater consistency in the ordinancef staff proposes that the standard term of the maJor planning permits (Administrative Approval, Performance Standards Permit, Variance, Ocean Park Yard Reduction Permit, Reduced Parking Permit, Development Review Permit, and Conditional Use Permit) be made consistent for a term of eighteen months, with the ability for the hearing body to establish a longer term as appropriate. This is consistent with the maximum term presently available for Variances and Administrative Approvals. However, it would be three months longer than the present maximum term of Development Review and Conditional Use Permits. Given the precedent established by the Variance and Administrative Approval terms, the complexity of the City's planning process, and the complexity of the development process generally, and of the CUP and DR process in particular, eighteen months appears to be an appropriate maximum term as compared to a shorter period. There are two other permit-term issues which need to be addressed: permit terms for subdivisions, and terms for uses which will occupy space within a development project. The Subdivision Ordinance provides that tentative subdivision maps are valid for a period of two years from its approval, however, most subdivisions in Santa Monica involve condominiums, which in - 4 - ---- --- addition to a tentat1ve map, also need a CondItional Use Permit. CUPs are normally valid for a period of one year. The Planning Commission has addressed this inconsistency by providing in its conditions of approval that the CUP is valid for as long as the tentative map is valid. This appears to be a reasonable approach which reconciles the requirements of the two ordinances, and staff would recommend that the Zoning Ordinance reflect the Planning Commission's practice. At times, CUPs or other planning permits are needed to authorize specific uses (such as restaurants, medical office space, etc. ) within a development project. Since these uses cannot occupy the building until it is complete, and since constructing a new building can take years, the term of a CUP or other permit for the special use may run out before the building is completed. To address this issue, staff is recommending that the code be amended to provide that the rights granted for uses within a construction project will expire if not exercised within six months following issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building. Extension of Planning permits The Zoning Ordinance provides that planning permits are valid for an initial term (usually one year) , but may be extended by the Zoning Administrator "for good cause.1t The ordinance provides no standards as to what constitutes good cause, and the extension - 5 - -- ------ provisions have been treated as a ministerial function. To simpll.fy this situation, staff proposes that the extension ability at an administrative level be eliminated. Generally, discretionary permits involve more complex projects which may require longer periods of time to accomplish. To recognize such difficulties, it is proposed that the code be clarified to provide that in the case of discretionary permits, the original hearing body may extend the term of planning permits for an approved project on a one-time basis for not more than six months, application for which must be made at least three months in advance of the expiration date of the permit. The application to extend would be subject of a public hearing and noticed in the same manner as the original permit. Specific findings of circumstances unique to the project would be required to approve such an extension, including unusual delays in obtaining other required government approvals (this might include extraordinary delays at the Coastal commission, or at other State or federal agencies (affordable housing projects, among others, have been subject to unusual delays in obtaining required approvals at the state and federal level). Buildlna Permit Use Although not arising out of the Zoning Ordinance, an important issue is what level of construction activity is needed to keep a building permit valid. The Uniform Building Code provides that - 6 - the building permit remains valid as long as work is being performed. There is no requirement that the work be substantial, or that the project be completed withln a set period. In a limited number of cases, building permits for projects approved under older regulations have been kept "alive" for years with minimal work performed. In the interim, new development standards which the City Council has determined to be more appropriate have been adopted. New projects are subject to the revised standards, but projects which have valid building permits are not required to comply with the new standards. It would generally be inappropriate to attempt to apply new standards to projects which are in fact exercising the rights granted by a valid building permit, but changes in current regulations are needed to address projects which are not actually proceeding with construction in any meaningful fashion. To address this problem, staff proposes that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to provide that for new projects authorized by planning permits, a Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained within two years of building permit lssuance, unless otherwise authorized in the planning permit approval. This latter provision is intended to provide flexibility for large or unusual projects. In addition, staff proposes that the Planning Director and Building and Safety Officer be authorized to approve up to a one-year extension of the originally-authorized building permit - 7 - ---- term lf the applicant demonstrates that construction equivalent to at least 50% of the value of the project has been completed. General Services Reauirements The General Services Department identifies required improvements for development projects during the Building Permit plancheck process. Such improvements might include widening or repaving an alley or street, improving a sewer line, replacing sidewalks, and other items which may result ln costs in the tens of thousands of dollars or more. Having these requirements emerge at the Building Permit stage is problematic, both from a financial and sometimes a design standpoint. For example, a street dedication requirement may alter lot coverage and setback elements, or necessitate a building redesign. staff believes it would be preferable that these requirements be set prior to Planning approval, so that they may be considered early in the development process. Procedure Zoning Ordinance text amendments are initiated by a Resolution of Intention, and must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff is recommending that the city Attorney be directed to draft an ordinance implementing recommendations of this report, along with a Planning Commission Resolution of Intention to formally initiate the amendments. The Planning Commission would conduct a - 8 - public hearing on the amendments and forward its recommendations to the City Council. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendations of this report would have no budget or financial impacts. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council direct the city Attorney to prepare Zoning Ordinance text amendments and a Resolution of Intention for the consideration of the Planning Commission including the following provisions: 1. The standard term of the major planning permits (Administrative Approval, Performance Standards Permit, variance, Ocean Park Yard Reduction Permit, Reduced Parking Permit, Development Review Permit, and Conditional Use Permit) shall be a period of eighteen months. Consistent with present code provisions, the hearing entity may set a longer term in conjunction with project approval for large or otherwise complex projects. 2. The ability to grant an extension of planning permits at an administrative level shall be eliminated. 3. The term of any planning permits granted for a subdivision shall be consistent with the term established for a tentative map by the Subdivision Ordinance. 4. Planning permits for uses wi thin a new building which are approved in conjunction with approval of such new building shall expire if the rights granted by approvals for such uses are not exercised within six months following issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building. S. In the case of discretionary permits, the original hearing body may extend the term of the planning permit for an approved project on a one-time basis for not more than six months. Application for such extension must be at least three months in - 9 - advance of the expiration date of the permit. Specific findings of circumstances unique to the project shall be required to approve such an extension, including unusual delays in obtaining other required government approvals (this might include extraordinary delays at the Coastal Commission, or at other state or federal agencies.) 6. Provide that for new projects authorized by the planning permits set forth in item (1) above, a certificate of Occupancy must be obtained within two years of building permit issuance, unless otherwise authorlzed in the original planning permit approval. In addition, the Planning Director and Building Officer may approve up to a one-year extension of the originally-authorized term if the applicant demonstrates that construction equivalent to at least 50% of the project valuation has been completed. 7. Require that General Services Department infrastructure improvement requirements be set prior to Planning permit approvals. Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager Paul Berlant, LUTM Director - 10 - - - - - ----